WAKANUI ROAD BOARD.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1494, 21 March 1885, Page 2

WAKANUI ROAD BOARD.

A special meeting of the Wakanui Road Board was held at the Board’s office, Moore street, this morning, to consider a letter received from the Longbeach Road Board, enclosing resolutions adopted by that body'at its last meeting in reference to the rate proposed to be levied upon the Longbeach, Wakanui and Upper Ashbur ton Road Boards by the County Council, trith regard to the construction of the Ashburton road bridge. Present —Messrs j Mayo (chairtnan). Bruce, Walsh and Cole. The Chairman stated the pmpose for which he had called the Board together. The County Council had announced its intention to ?trike ft rate upon the district towards the construction of a bridge, which would be of no more value to them than it would to other districts which was exempt from the operations of the rate. He asked the Clerk to read the letter and resolutions transmitted by the Longbeach Road Board. The Olork read the letter received fr< m the Longbeach Road Board, which re_ quested the co-operation of the Wakanui ttnard in opposing the proposals -rAWw made by the Committee ot mo , C'- 1 unoil. Tae text of the resolutions on- ■ v osvd yerjj published in our last Mon- j day’s issue. I Mr' Walsh asked that the injustice £ wftich would be suffered by tip Rhfd 5

Boards enumerated might be pointed oafr#* At present he could see none. mSO Mr Megson said that the other bridges constructed by the County Council, and which were referred to iu the report of the Committee, almoet solely benefitted the adjacent Road Boards and the Council waa quite justified in asking them to oontributa But those circumstances were not parallel to the case in point. The proposed road bri 'g9 waa on the Main £outh_road, and like the Rangitara bridge fahould be constructed from the County funds. He thought, too, that the Committee which had reported to the Council I had travelled beyond its commission. It was appointed me/ely to meet the Borough Council and discuss the questions of plans and the Borough's contribution. It should have reported to the Council on those subjects and left the Finance Com* mittee to deal with the question of funds. He would then have availed himself aa a County Councillor of an ODDortunity to

iiscuas the fiance proposals. Mr Walsh said they could not dictate bo the Council how its business should be conducted. He took it that the business of the meeting was to disousa the propriety of concurring with the resolutions forwarded by the Longbeach Board. The bridge having been shown to be a county work he thought the Council should not require a special contribution from particular Road Boirds. The Chairman pointed out that the Rangitata and Llakai i Road Board district which would receive quite as much benefit from the bridge as Wakanui, were not asked to pay a spec al rate. Mr Bruce thought the ratepayers of Wakanui would have no objection to sobscribe their fair share towards the construction of the bridge, but they should not be asked to pay a special rate while other districts equally interested were exempt. Mr Megson remarked that in his opinion the Tinwald Town Board district, not bein? liable for county rates,- should be required to make a special contribution towards the cost of the bridge, but the other bodies indicated should certain'y not b '■ taxed for the purposeOn the motion of Mr Walsh, seconded by Mr Bruce, it was resolved—" That this Board adopt the resolutions passed by the Longbeach Road Board with reference to the traffic bridge, and authorise its Chairman to co-operate with the Chairmen of the other Boards in opposing the proposals of tne County Council, and also to communicate with the members representing these road districts in the Council for assistance in opposing the said proposals." BRIDGE SMITH'S ROAD. The Clerk reported that verbally Mr Brown, on oeha'f of Mr O. W. Turner, had expressed his desire to avoid litigation in respect to the erection of a br dge across the creek on Smith's road, and had stated that the proprietor of the Canterbury Mills would be prepared to pay onethird of the cost of such bridge. Mr Turner was of opinion that the County Council should contribute towards the cost of the bridge. Mr Megson did not think it at all probable that the County Council would make a contribution towards the work. However, the matter could not be discussed until they had scmthing in writing from Mr Turner. The Chairman concurred with Mr Megson as to the necessity of having something in writing from Mr Turner before dealing with the matter. He suggested that it should be deferred until tb,e next ordinary meeting of the Board. The suggestion of the Chairman was adopted, and after arranging that the next ordinary meeting should take plaoe on Friday, April' 11th, the Board adjourned.